Wednesday, May 25, 2016
The Obama expansion of welfare is done for one reason: to buy votes. Welfare is never going to amount to enough money to pull anyone out of poverty – and that is by design. This is another way to divide and conquer the U.S. electorate and win votes. Does welfare help some hard working Americans overcome a tough time? Absolutely. But does welfare addict young women and single moms to governance? Yes, and that is its purpose. Democrats are less interested in using welfare revenues to clean up inner cities that would enable the economy to recover and provide real jobs to its residents. That would not be an ideal situation for Democrats because people who can think for themselves and who are not addicted to government are less likely to vote for them. So welfare over reconstruction of inner cities wins. How is this ideal for women and children – keeping them slaves to poverty in their run down broken economies of inner cities? Crime, drug addiction, bad health, and a low life expectancy awaits them. Obama and Democrats want to accept tens of thousands of Syrian refugees but admits the United States does not have the means to do credible background checks. Terrorists posing as Syrian refugees killed hundreds in a terrorist attack in Paris and perpetuated attacks in Turkey and Indonesia. Syrian refugees raped dozens of women in Germany and Sweden because diversity laws do not make them assimilate to native laws. Still, Obama and liberals alike want to welcome these folks with open arms. Our immigration system failed miserably in preventing the San Bernardino terrorist attack, who has confidence it will prevent terrorists from entering our nation posed as Syrian refugees? This policy is more dangerous for American women, because Muslim extremists have very little regard for women’s rights of any kind. Obama is releasing new executive orders on gun control. None of these new rules would have prevented any past mass shooting. Sure, things like background checks to purchase firearms makes sense. Unfortunately, the DOJ prosecutes fewer than 1% of all cases where people failed background checks or filed falsified background checks – so it is useless. It is just a “dog and pony show” to make it look like liberals actually care and are doing something about gun violence. Hence, the outcome of Obama gun control laws would only make it more difficult for law abiding women and Americans to get the firearms they need to protect themselves from the onslaught of liberal policy. There is a war on women and it is not on their reproductive system. It is a liberal policy war on women that puts their right to life in jeopardy. Why? Because liberals will do anything necessary to win an election, even if it means putting you at risk. It all starts by placing a wedge between Americans and segregating them into hyphenated categories. And then doing anything necessary to paint opponents as prejudice, bigots, or racists. Democrats are dividing and conquering the U.S. electorate using propaganda such as the War on Women (that conservatives want to take away women’s reproductive rights); police are profiling blacks; and conservatives hate the poor and Muslims. This is Obama’s new America. This is his Hope and Change. Does any of this sound familiar? It is what is referred to as “critical theory” hypothesized under the founder of socialism - the Karl Marx school of thought. Unfortunately, Americans have become too narcissistic to understand the big picture. Most only care about what’s in it for them. That is how welfare works. It works to buy votes, but it does very little to lift people out of poverty. Liberal policies are not just polarizing, but they are dangerous and putting our lives at risk –especially women and children.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Other liberal policies, on the other hand, can put the lives of women and children at risk for crime and even death. Consider liberal assimilation policies. In fact, liberals who push for diversity laws are against assimilation policies of any kind. Liberal goals are to divide Americans into voting blocs instead of uniting the country. That is why we are no longer considered Americans, but hyphenated Americans: Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Female-Americans, and so forth. When Americans are divided into hyphenated groups, it is easy to use the race card and call an adversary a bigot or prejudice to win a debate. The result of such policies are dangerous, and the dangers can be witnessed under Obama’s rule. Without assimilation, the result will eventually be anarchy and liberals do not understand these dangers. Under Obama’s rule race relations in America have deteriorated dramatically. For instance, Black Lives Matters argues that only black lives matter and that is it. No other life is worth protecting or saving. Heck, according to Black Lives Matter, most black lives do not matter either. In Chicago, for example, the only black life that mattered this past years is the one that was unjustly killed by police (Laquan McDonald) – all the black on black crime that killed hundreds last year was never brought into question. Where does such distasteful behavior and disgraceful rhetoric originate? At the top with Obama! Obama incites African-Americans by only mentioning white on black crime, police on black crime, and discusses the injustices of the judicial system that incarcerates far more minorities. The result: violence. Violent protests, violent crime at its highest level in decades in most major cities, and violent crime against the police. I ask you, is this an ideal environment for women or children? In an effort to level the playing field in prisons, Obama has granted clemency to over 6,000 inmates. Yes, these inmates are supposed to be non-violent, but studies indicate most criminals (nearly 80%) will commit more serious crimes within two years of being released from prison. Obama and liberals also support more lenient sentences to most crimes, especially drug crimes. In fact, Obama fails to enforce federal statutes for marijuana in states that legalized the drug. Is this making our neighborhoods safer for women and children? Obama wants to omit the question on employee applications that asks “Are you a felon?” Obama wants to make it easier for felons to get jobs in your workplace. Obama and Democrats want to make it legal for felons to vote. Why? Because 62 percent of all incarcerated individuals claim to be Democrats whereas, only 9 percent claim to be Republicans. This is why liberals want lenient penalties for criminals – they want them out of prison so they can vote for liberal candidates. That is right, liberals will place a vote above your safety. And don’t forget, Liberals want leniency for the worst kind of predators – those that victimize women and children. Obama refuses to secure our borders, sues states that have strong anti-immigration laws, and protects sanctuary cities. This policy leaves our borders open to terrorists and drug warlords. It protects illegal alien criminals in sanctuary cities and leads to avoidable crimes such as the killing of Kate Steinle. What do her reproductive rights matter if her right to life is not protected?
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
When you think of war, you think of high potential of bodily harm and constant danger. Women (feminists) believe the war on women has to do with reproductive rights (not bodily harm or danger): The right to an abortion and the right to contraception. The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion making it legal. Dozens of kinds of contraception are available over the counter or with a prescription. Yet, feminists are brain washed into believing that conservatives want to take away their abortion rights and contraception. The main issue conservatives have is they do not want abortion and contraception to be paid for by public funding. Moreover, most conservatives concede abortions under unique circumstances are acceptable: a crime (rape) or the health of the mother. Even religious groups have very little issue with contraception except for those types like the morning after pill that can abort a fetus. No one is trying to take away the reproductive rights of Female-Americans, they just want them to be responsible and accountable for their actions. Here is a quick fact: Abortions will cause more bodily harm and danger to the woman than child birth. Yet, liberals are against any measure such as sonograms that may give the mother a second thought about having an abortion. Studies indicate that women who have aborted a child will suffer later in life from mental acuity issues from the traumatic experience of abortion, much more intense than any postpartum depression. Abortions are commonly used in countries like China where there one child policy has led to the deaths of millions of female fetuses. Social stigmas pressure families to want a boy, not a girl for their one child. In the U.S., Planned Parenthood aborts tens of thousands of babies each year. What’s worse, Planned Parenthood profiteers from selling fetal tissue. Hence, the organization has no reason to try to counsel women, which could potentially reverse their decision on the procedure. If abortion and contraception are rights, then what about the rights of male reproductive organs. Is a vasectomy a right? The Supreme Court ruled in Beck v. Bell that sterilization was legal. Should the government pay for this? And if it is legal to kill a fetus, how far away are we from legalizing (making it a right) the killing of humans through euthanasia? What requirements must a person meet to qualify for euthanasia? Will the government be responsible for these costs? We are on a slippery slope. Let’s face facts, Female-American equal protection rights are “more equal” than Male-American rights. Male’s do not have rights for their reproductive organs. The government spends billions more protecting female reproductive rights including cancer research. Heck, females are considered diverse in the work place and are protected by affirmative action laws. Where is the war?
Sunday, May 15, 2016
The big catch phrase in schools these days is “gifted kids”. School districts are working hard to identify gifted kids so their school experience can be enriched. This is a good idea and unfortunately, it took a back seat to standardized testing for decades. Standardized testing and even grades will not necessarily identify gifted kids academically, so it will be a tough task to craft. In athletics, gifted kids are much easier to identify then in the classroom. Since athletics are not mandatory, kids who elect to play sports do so because they like it (if they are not force by their parents). Hence, most kids are not necessarily bored with athletics and give it their all on the playing field. Also, athletic activities are observed by hundreds of parents – some with a keen eye. This does not happen in schools so it harder to identify when kids are bored and being forced to do things they do not like - and this does not turn out well. In many cases, children revolt by doing poorly. Once kids are identified as being gifted athletically, parents and even the community work to help get them more experience through higher level coaching and playing in more competitive leagues. It is not so simple in the classroom. Enrichment comes in different types and levels. Forcing kids into enrichment will fail, it has to be a two way street. In many cases enrichment is reinforced through having volunteers help kids – not a bad model. All that being said, many kids peak or bloom early athletically or academically. Kids that bloom early will ultimately find a higher chance of success down the road, but it is not always clear cut. There are many athletic examples out there. There are three kids wrestling in college today that were highly recruited at successful division one programs. They were four time state champions in arguably the most competitive youth wrestling state: Pennsylvania. Two have not been able to crack the starting lineup on their teams. Meanwhile, the other, a junior, has seen moderate success, but has struggled greatly at times. How does this happen? Hard to say, but once you are in college everyone is a state champ and pretty darn good. So you have to be mentally tough and get used to learning from loses. It is tough for kids to get used to losing after being so successful in high school. Kids have to be coachable and willing to change their game plan by refining technique because what worked in high school does not necessarily work in college. Receiving scholarships is also pressure to perform at a high level very quickly. Everyone thought those three kids would be competing for national championships right out of the gate – it has not happened – not even close. Kids can also peak academically early on. If they are not identified as gifted, they can easily fall in a crack and be lost early on in the educational process. Unfortunately, giftedness does not measure something that is vastly important for future success: determination. Any person gifted without determination may skate through life but refuse to challenge themselves to get a better job or do better athletically. Hence, I see determination as a better gauge to success than giftedness. A gifted kid may be hard to teach or coach, but a kid determined to get better is much easier to coach and teach. There are so many examples of this, especially athletically. When the Penn State football team was decimated through NCAA sanctions they had to rely on walk-ons. One kid came to the program who never started in high school. He was a runt, but he grew and worked hard and this year he led the nation in sacks. He is now a potential first round pick in the NFL. The kid was determined to get better and never missed a practice or work out session. When things do not come as easy or naturally athletically or academically, if a person is determined to succeed, they may overcome the odds. These are the kids that will be the hard workers in society. And these kids face less scrutiny growing up and therefore less pressure than kids that excel early on. What people need to be identifying are kids with potential who are determined and what one would classify as an “overachiever”. These kids can fall in a crack, but they are less likely to let it happen. I would be much happier working with a room full of overachievers than a room full of giftedness. Gifted without determination could yield failure and mediocrity at best, but an overachiever without giftedness could yield success on a higher level. Think of it this way: One-Hundred percent of the under achieving population comes from the gifted class of kids. Hence, a great number of gifted kids are set for failure or mediocrity in the game of life. No question, the kids with the best success rates will be gifted kids who are determined to get better. A child can still be gifted and overachieve. For example, Presidents would fall into this category. No one expects a gifted child to one day be president – it is a job only 45 people have earned 240 years. My advice is simple: Do not exclude determined, hard-working, overachievers from gifted academic or athletic programs. After all, these traits are becoming rarer than the traits of gifted students and athletes. America was and is built on hard work and not giftedness (potential). It is important to foster giftedness, but even more important to yield opportunities to hard workers.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
In mathematics, numbers have no meaning without being described by units. Numbers by themselves are ambiguous and mean nothing. In physics, numbers are often described with not only a magnitude with units, but as vectors meaning they also have a directional component. Properly defined numbers omit ambiguity. The same is true for the practical use of numbers when giving directions. Once again, numbers are need to be defined by units and direction. Such as go East for 5 miles then turn North on highway 49 and go 2.5 miles to exit 23. Without descriptors, numbers are useless. In the use of words, ambiguity is much more widespread than with numbers. In order to avoid ambiguity a person may use adjectives to better describe nouns or adverbs to describe verbs. Unfortunately, people will purposely omit adjectives or adverbs when describing something to make the meaning as ambiguous as possible. This is especially true in the world of politics and the world of Obama. Let’s examine a basic example before discussing Obama. The Supreme Court has read the right of privacy into the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). However, that is very broad, vague, and ambiguous because privacy can mean so many different things. It can be the right of privacy in terms of civil rights. In can be the right of privacy in terms of conversations, health, wealth, sexual orientation, and so forth. And we know that all things about people are not private. For instance, it’s public knowledge how much everyone pays for a home. And, of course, the NSA is allowed to listen in on our conversations to protect our national security. So the Court’s decision that the right of privacy is contained in the constitution is false. Some rights to privacy are while others are not. Obama uses ambiguity when explaining terror policies or activities. Obama says we are fighting “extremism” or he may define an act of terror as “workforce violence” or a “manmade disaster”. These are very vague terms. There are all kinds of extremism. Obama just does not want to say Islamic extremism. There is a big difference between Islamic extremists and domestic extremists in terms of violence, and the form of attack. Islamic extremists are suicidal, many other extremist types are not – they try to get away with violence. Islamic extremists’ meticulously plan and define their targets. Other types of violence can be random. Environmental or weather disasters are generally defined by tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, floods, etc. But manmade disaster leaves out these such descriptors for convenience. Workforce violence can be murder, rape, or destruction of private property. Once again this is vague. Why does Obama manipulate words and changes definitions to be vague and ambiguous? Just so his administration does not have say Islamic when defining terror or extremists. Politicians are savvy this way, to be ambiguous. Obama has been a master of this technique. He is the master of saying a lot about nothing by being vague especially when it comes to terror.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
To be an isolationist is to shun social media and the philosophies of our growing narcissistic society. I am an isolationist to a varying degree. I do not care how many friends I have or how many Facebook friends I have. True friends do not grow on trees, they are hard to find. A friend is a person that will do anything for you at any time – a friend after all, is not a self-serving narcissist. I have been fortunate to find a few true friends. Other than that I have a few acquaintances. As an isolationist I am not rude. I wave and say hi to everyone. I hold doors open for people and help people carry their bags. An isolationist talks to others and is friendly in public. An isolationist does not think they are better than anyone else, it is a belief or theory, not a reason to be anti-social. In fact, it is the narcissist and social media followers that are too busy looking at their phones to be social. As a true isolationist, I also do not like to join groups, organizations, charities, or committees. Every such activity has an agenda and is political to some degree. These groups try to raise money from strangers and even sometimes from people they know – I could never do such a task. I do not even like being on a cycling team. Yes, a cycling team has an agenda. They want local tax revenue to be used for bike trails and safer roads. Yes, this would be great, but I am not superficial enough to realize that using tax money for these purposes would be a low priority on most people’s lists. It is hard to argue that tax money should go to a bike route over education for instance. On the other hand, in our narcissistic times, it seems most people are in a competition to see who can support and join the most organizations. An isolationist does not have to completely cut themselves off from society. For instance, I prefer to give to local charities to help someone in need where I am more confident my money is going directly to the cause I intended (I will do so anonymously – to maintain my isolationism traits and not draw attention to myself). Narcissism and a vast number of charities, groups, and organizations tends to lead to more fraud, chaos, and inefficiency in society. An isolationist in real life is a true minority. But, and isolationist (laissez-faire) political belief is quite common. Basically conservatives believe in laissez-faire for domestic policy whereas a liberal believes in laissez-faire in foreign policy. My beliefs tend to follow how I live, so I actually believe in isolationism for both foreign and domestic policy. I practice what I preach. For example, it is not fair for me to preach federal fiscal responsibility and not practice it in my life. That is hypocrisy. I realize that it is almost impossible for the United States to be the leader in the free world and follow a true isolationist policy. But, we can certainly be more isolated from foreign affairs than we are. It is certainly a narcissistic belief to think we can actually help and save everyone. In my opinion, it just simply does not make sense to want isolationism for one thing and not for another. I also do not understand how millennials can support an isolationism foreign policy but at the same time measure their own success by narcissistic means such as friends on Facebook. Most people do not truly practice an isolationist theology in the real world. Hence, I find it perplexing that over 90% of the American population believes the United States should follow an isolationist policy for either domestic or foreign policy. If we practiced what expect from the federal government, then maybe there would be no need for social mediums which can be inherently evil on so many levels – identity theft, infidelity, other crimes / bullying, recruiting terrorists, and ironically teaching individuals anti-social behaviors. Is it really practical to think the federal government can solve every domestic problem and foreign dispute? No, it is not. Is it really practical for there to be millions of charities, clubs, and organizations? Of course not. Just as it is impractical for people to have thousands of friends. Isolationism may not be ideal, but it is better than narcissism, it is much more realistic.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Both parties are guilty of the growth of the Federal Government. However, there is a distinct difference in points of view. The Republicans want to grow national security (border agents, agencies to fight terror, the military, etc.) to protect our freedoms, rights, and liberty. On the other hand, Democrats want to grow the federal government to infringe on our freedoms, rights, and liberty. The Democrats main focus is on rationing. That sounds strange that the government is expanding through rationing policies, but it is true. Consider climate change as a good example of rationing. The goal is to ration carbon emissions. Thus, the government, in particular the EPA, places and enforces rules, regulations, and mandates on companies and individuals. It is a matter of time before the government provides each American with a “carbon footprint” identity card. We will have to use the card for every purchase in particular for heating, cooling, mass transportation travel, and so forth. The government will place a carbon footprint cap on everyone except for politicians and the President of course. Rationing can also be seen as the government places more restrictions on guns. For massive gun control to work, the government will have to expand to enforce such measures. In fact, federal rationing is everywhere! Consider socialism and welfare programs. Wealth is rationed and that transfer of money happens in the form of taxes and is then applied to anyone of several thousand anti-poverty programs. Obama-Care will ration healthcare just how Medicare has rationed healthcare for the elderly. Education is being rationed – trade schools are gone. Arts, music, geography, and history are rationed so educators can teach to a mandated test for reading, writing, and math. Government rationing is also looking at controlling what we buy, what we eat, and where we do it. For instance, the government wants to ration how many calories intake, how much sugar we intake, how much meat we intake (related to carbon emissions), and how many carbs we ingest. The government can ration land through eminent domain. The government even rations farmers on how much of certain crops they can grow – and reimburses them for doing so. Sure, Democrats have expanded a few rights such as marriage and of course there is no limit on the number of abortions a person can have. Now that is progress for you, the government rations our wages (taxes), rations what we can eat, rations our guns, rations our healthcare, rations our carbon footprint, but it is okay to kill as many unborn as you want! And what’s worse, the more government places restrictions on rationing, the more the federal government grows and hence, the more the federal government needs to ration our wealth. It is a vicious cycle. Rationing is the biggest intrusion into our freedoms, rights, and liberties. But it is the most effective way to grow government. Hence, propaganda and fearmongering are used to make us believe it is in our best interest to comply with rationing. Every bad weather event is due to manmade climate change and every gun death could have been prevented with gun control. Unfortunately, most of us are none the wiser to these deceptions and lies.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
I was trained at work by a super smart person who routinely referred to me as a “stupid idiot”. Lots of people helped me, but this person was extremely helpful. They were just a little politically incorrect. However, this person did not discriminate, they referred to everyone as “stupid idiots”. I did not really care because I was learning and at times the person was right, I was being a “stupid idiot”. Over time I just got used to it, it was just their way. I even joked about it. One day I asked them why were they in such a good mood. They responded by saying “Don’t you know when you are being insulted?” I said “I do, but today I am just “stupid” while the previous month I was a “stupid idiot”. Even they had to laugh at that. This person was scrutinized because several people complained about being called a “stupid idiot”. I guess this hurt some people’s egos (and in engineering, everyone has a big ego). Someone asked me if I had been insulted by this person, they were doing an investigation into the person. I told them that this is the best teacher I had ever had and they treat everyone the same way. I told them anyone who has their feelings hurt by a little political incorrectness is not interested in learning, but protecting their fragile ego. I would not give them any credence. I believe several people went to bat for this individual and they were not fired. The moral of the story is that you can refer to anyone as stupid if you can back it up with performance and being an expert in the field. I hear Trump use the word stupid all the time. Yet, during debates, he is continually being corrected for his stupidity or ignorance. He wrongly suggested Mexicans constitute the majority of illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border today. He had to be educated on the Trans Pacific Partnership by Rand Paul. The fact of the matter is Trump is uninformed on most domestic and foreign issues and says a lot about nothing – other than to brag about himself and his poll numbers. If you are going to refer to everyone as stupid, then you better be an expert. Trump is no expert. In fact, that is what people like about him. His ignorance and own stupidity proves he is an outsider of sorts. But is this what we want as our President: A know-it-all narcissist that knows less than Obama about foreign or domestic policy? In my experience, the use of words like stupid and idiot are a defense mechanism to mask one’s own stupidity. It is very rare that someone can be defended for making such statement – I can recall one person in my life time.